2023 (4) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upholding the impugned imposition of penalty of Rs.90,52,387/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act on the basis of the show cause notice dated 29.12.2011 for concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5 without specifying the precise default in the notice and therefore the printed notice without striking off the inapplicable issued for levy of penalty was vague, non-communicative and thus non speaking defeating the purpose of notice. 2. The Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs.90,52,387/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plained cash credit and commission @ 5%. The total penalty levied was Rs.90,52,387/-. 4. Upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has raised a legal issue that the penalty notice was an omnibus notice without specifying the charge and it was prayed that since the notice is not specifying the charge, penalty levied is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the aforesaid issue was also raised before the ld. CIT (A) but he has rejected the same. 8. Upon careful consideration and going th....